I agree. I know Rosenbloom isn't real popular here but yes I too believe that he hit the bullseye. Love the sarcasm directed at Alderman Tunney. Wrigley Field is a dump. Maybe a salvageable dump but it looks like the Ricketts don't have the political clout to make the necessary changes. That's another area Rosenbloom hit on. The tone deaf incompetence and inability of the Ricketts. Wrigley Field is a giant albatross, even more so because it is perceived by Cub fans and really baseball fans in general, that it is absolutely necessary to hold onto it forever. Bull****. How many times as a resident old fart here and in life am I told the only constant is change? I guess it will be left to Jed and Theo to bail out the politically weak and baseball business inept Ricketts ownership group.

He was right up until that last point. The Cubs are not moving to Rosemont. They're not moving out of Wrigley. This is an idiotic bluff and I don't know why anyone would buy it. In 105 years of ineptitude, moving out of Wrigley Field would be the dumbest thing the Cubs have ever done.

He was right up until that last point. The Cubs are not moving to Rosemont. They're not moving out of Wrigley. This is an idiotic bluff and I don't know why anyone would buy it. In 105 years of ineptitude, moving out of Wrigley Field would be the dumbest thing the Cubs have ever done.

I don't think my initial post wasn't even commented on. I think moving could turn out to be one of the best things to happen to the Cubs. I don't understand. In a world where things are changing at warp speed, and not just in technology, the Cubs have to stay in Wrigley forever because the world will fall off its axis? The Cubs need to break from a century plus of abject futility, and Wrigley Field is part of the problem, not the nirvana everyone makes it out to be. Like I said in my original post, a Cub fan wanted to strangle me I think for stating that.

I prefer to work with people that kowtow to my every request instead of people who obstruct every move I try to make. The Cubs should at least consider it.

Wrigley is already half empty for weekday games. People will take the L out to Rosemont in the summer (especially if they can get the express Blue Line to O'Hare up and running). Build a state of the art stadium that caters to upper-crust big spenders and corporations, people will spend the money regardless of where the stadium is.

I don't think my initial post wasn't even commented on. I think moving could turn out to be one of the best things to happen to the Cubs. I don't understand. In a world where things are changing at warp speed, and not just in technology, the Cubs have to stay in Wrigley forever because the world will fall off its axis? The Cubs need to break from a century plus of abject futility, and Wrigley Field is part of the problem, not the nirvana everyone makes it out to be. Like I said in my original post, a Cub fan wanted to strangle me I think for stating that.

A changing world toward what, though? The changing world of baseball in the last few decades has seen a move away from generic suburban multipurpose cookie-cutters towards city center stadiums which are supposed to look retro (nevermind if they actually do or not). Wrigley, for better or worse, is the economic model for that, a park in a neighborhood where bars and nightlife act as a huge economic pull both for and because of the ballpark. It's why most new MLB stadiums built in the last 25 years has been in a city center where the team is trying to create that neighborhood experience (the exceptions that I can think of replaced an older ballpark in the same city location; in the Bronx, Philly, Bridgeport, Arlington, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Flushing)

It's the draw of the team; the appeal of the Cubs is their old ballpark, you don't hear much about the team's tradition or history because, as Rosenbloom said, their tradition and history is a losing, pathetic one. We've rehashed this argument many teams in this thread, but moving to the suburbs and out of Wrigley Field would get rid of the tourist draw for the Cubs, which I think would be an absolute disaster. A million people per season, which is my completely baseless guesstimate as to what Wrigley brings every year as a tourist draw, are not going to flock to Generic Suburban Ballpark. Attendance would absolutely crash if the Cubs moved from Wrigleyville to Rosemont, let alone at a Rosemont site that is completely unfeasible for a suburban ballpark.

A changing world toward what, though? The changing world of baseball in the last few decades has seen a move away from generic suburban multipurpose cookie-cutters towards city center stadiums which are supposed to look retro (nevermind if they actually do or not). Wrigley, for better or worse, is the economic model for that, a park in a neighborhood where bars and nightlife act as a huge economic pull both for and because of the ballpark. It's why most new MLB stadiums built in the last 25 years has been in a city center where the team is trying to create that neighborhood experience (the exceptions that I can think of replaced an older ballpark in the same city location; in the Bronx, Philly, Bridgeport, Arlington, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Flushing)

It's the draw of the team; the appeal of the Cubs is their old ballpark, you don't hear much about the team's tradition or history because, as Rosenbloom said, their tradition and history is a losing, pathetic one. We've rehashed this argument many teams in this thread, but moving to the suburbs and out of Wrigley Field would get rid of the tourist draw for the Cubs, which I think would be an absolute disaster. A million people per season, which is my completely baseless guesstimate as to what Wrigley brings every year as a tourist draw, are not going to flock to Generic Suburban Ballpark. Attendance would absolutely crash if the Cubs moved from Wrigleyville to Rosemont, let alone at a Rosemont site that is completely unfeasible for a suburban ballpark.

Who says it has to be a generic cookie cutter stadium like those that used to be in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis back in the day? I know this is a very city centric board, but trends come and go. The back to the city thing is much ballyhooed and very overrated. It is a sliver of high income people leading the charge. Those that marry and have kids are often off to Naperville or some such when it is time for the kiddies to start school. Not everyone gets to go to a choice magnet school. The vast majority of Chicago area residents live outside the city limits and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Anyway, even if it is a sin to consider a ball park that isn't Wrigley, the Cubs are a special case. I mean 1908 and 1945. Even I wasn't alive then. I'm surprised a hidebound old goat like me can see that radical changes are necessary. Cub fans aren't going to give up on their team. There will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but the Cubs desperately need a different venue to play in. Even if they get a refurbished Wrigley where will they play while the rehabbing is going on? Then they will still be boxed in by the rules laid down by a very powerful alderman. Sometimes in life you have to consider the unthinkable.

Who says it has to be a generic cookie cutter stadium like those that used to be in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis back in the day? I know this is a very city centric board, but trends come and go. The back to the city thing is much ballyhooed and very overrated. It is a sliver of high income people leading the charge. Those that marry and have kids are often off to Naperville or some such when it is time for the kiddies to start school. Not everyone gets to go to a choice magnet school. The vast majority of Chicago area residents live outside the city limits and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Anyway, even if it is a sin to consider a ball park that isn't Wrigley, the Cubs are a special case. I mean 1908 and 1945. Even I wasn't alive then. I'm surprised a hidebound old goat like me can see that radical changes are necessary. Cub fans aren't going to give up on their team. There will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but the Cubs desperately need a different venue to play in. Even if they get a refurbished Wrigley where will they play while the rehabbing is going on? Then they will still be boxed in by the rules laid down by a very powerful alderman. Sometimes in life you have to consider the unthinkable.

I'm no pretentious city-dweller. I live in a suburb. It's not about city vs suburban living here, it's about a sports team whose identity is tied together with their stadium as much as any other sports team in the world. Tourists who came to Chicago are not going to go out to Rosemont to see a new ballpark in anywhere close to the same degree that they currently flock to Wrigley Field. 20-and-30-somethings with disposable incomes who love getting shvitzed at who knows how many games each summer are not going to go to Rosemont in the same numbers, either. Those families in the suburbs you refer to might go to a few games a year, but I don't see them being able to support the team in large numbers for every game to the same degree that tourists and young people currently do.

The economics of Wrigley Field and the Cubs are rather unique, and I don't see any way they can re-create that environment out in the suburbs, and especially not at the site being discussed here. The Cubs have not been a marketing and economic success for 30 years because their fans are any more loyal than anyone else, it's because of the ballpark itself and where that park is located. Doing away with those advantages would also do away with their prolonged attendance success.

Well at some point in time regardless of how much money is spent on upkeep, the place is going to be ruled unsafe simply because of age. That's the reality the Cubs and their fans have to face.

Assuming JR is still alive the Cubs won't be able to use U.S. Cellular so the options are limited for them even if they want to build a brand new identical park in the same location.

Lip

On that first point, I'm left dumbfounded by how much the Ricketts paid for the team. Was it you, or someone else, who said that the nearest bidder to them was a couple hundred million dollars less? You don't buy a fixer-upper without taking into account how much is needed to fix up the place. Sam Zell absolutely played the Ricketts, who seemingly came into this less as business-people than as fan boys.

If I gave that impression I apologize. I enjoyed living in the city of Chicago. As for the rest of your post I hear you loud and clear, I am just a major contrarian on this I guess. I see Wrigley as a prison for the Cubs, albeit a gilded one. As a Sox fan, I hope they keep floundering.

Well at some point in time regardless of how much money is spent on upkeep, the place is going to be ruled unsafe simply because of age. That's the reality the Cubs and their fans have to face.

Assuming JR is still alive the Cubs won't be able to use U.S. Cellular so the options are limited for them even if they want to build a brand new identical park in the same location.

Lip

The only way to really save the ballpark would be to completely renovate the lower and upper deck grandstands. That would include a new supporting infrastructure and base. It can be done, but at what cost? With the exception of the bleachers and lower box sections, it would be a complete rebuild in the same footprint. Add the fact that it's not very easy to get heavy machinery in/out of Wrigleyville, it would be a very long process.

If I gave that impression I apologize. I enjoyed living in the city of Chicago. As for the rest of your post I hear you loud and clear, I am just a major contrarian on this I guess. I see Wrigley as a prison for the Cubs, albeit a gilded one. As a Sox fan, I hope they keep floundering.

And as a Sox fan, I hope they leave the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

The only way to really save the ballpark would be to completely renovate the lower and upper deck grandstands. That would include a new supporting infrastructure and base. It can be done, but at what cost? With the exception of the bleachers and lower box sections, it would be a complete rebuild in the same footprint. Add the fact that it's not very easy to get heavy machinery in/out of Wrigleyville, it would be a very long process.

To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.